Toronto 1200 Bay (Tiffany & Co. fitout) | 326.5m | 87s | ProWinko | Herzog & de Meuron

How this could change the Bloor/ Yorkville skyline

IMG_0358_LI.jpg
 
It’s very thin indeed when viewed from the North, as in one of the renders in the database entry. It isn’t so thin from the east or the west, but I would like to see a render of the full tower from one of those viewpoints.
 
We should see the documents soon

app.toronto.ca

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. As of July 30th, the Application Information Centre has...
app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca
 
WislaHD said:
Meh. I could do without this.

Assemble a larger floorplate with the development behind and build more housing at a shorter height, pretty please. Housing is what is important, not height.
Click to expand...
Huh? Typically more height=more floors=more units=more housing. Toronto needs to build taller.I 'm not sure why people are so opposed to height.
 
The Steinway Tower by ShOP is a lot more interesting to me than this proposal.
I wonder if they were to chip away at it at the back like Steinway if that would mitigate shadowing on Jesse Ketchum.

1591283456857.png

Source

1591284018003.jpeg

Source
 
I'm a height geek and I think toronto needs to build taller than it is currently anyway, we cant urban sprawl forever. For those reasons I'll endorse a building like this, and I think this neighborhood would look fantastic with 4 buildings all over 260m

That said I would really like to see some massing from an angle where it doesnt look super skinny. I'll be the first to admit that I do not like the look of the super slims in New York in the slightest. Given this is only over 300m and not 400 I think it will be fine, but a 400m stick does nothing to compliment the skyline imo and only caters to an exorbitantly rich demographic.
 
Luxury super-tall buildings in Manhattan have come to represent a deeply unequal capitalist economic system - where a privileged few, holding an outsized share of the public wealth, literally tower over the rest of us who are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.

In the United States, empty towers co-owned by billionaires, foreign kleptocrats, shell corporations and REITs tower over a country where millions of unemployed people are without homes, the state inflicts violence on its most vulnerable populations, and unrest seethes in the streets.

Normally I would be really excited and interested in a tower designed by Herog & deMeuron in my own city... but something about that image unsettled. It looks to me like a crystalization of that horrible societal sickness sprouting up in our city and I'm not sure I like it.

Plus, who would want to wait for the elevator?
 
UrbanFervour said:
Luxury super-tall buildings in Manhattan have come to represent a deeply unequal capitalist economic system - where a privileged few, holding an outsized share of the public wealth, literally tower over the rest of us who are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.

In the United States, empty towers co-owned by billionaires, foreign kleptocrats, shell corporations and REITs tower over a country where millions of unemployed people are without homes, the state inflicts violence on its most vulnerable populations, and unrest seethes in the streets.

Normally I would be really excited and interested in a tower designed by Herog & deMeuron in my own city... but something about that image unsettled. It looks to me like a crystalization of that horrible societal sickness sprouting up in our city and I'm not sure I like it.

Plus, who would want to wait for the elevator?
Click to expand...
TBH, I'd prefer billionaires parking their wealth in a condensed plot of land rather than building their mansions north of the city.

If we really want housing equality, it's up to the city to 1.) Tax and fund social housing properly, and 2.) Make small-scale multi-unit development easier and open up the yellowbelt so that housing inventory can be increased through bottom-up owner-driven development, rather than top-down corporate-driven development that concentrates wealth.
 
UrbanFervour said:
Luxury super-tall buildings in Manhattan have come to represent a deeply unequal capitalist economic system - where a privileged few, holding an outsized share of the public wealth, literally tower over the rest of us who are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.

In the United States, empty towers co-owned by billionaires, foreign kleptocrats, shell corporations and REITs tower over a country where millions of unemployed people are without homes, the state inflicts violence on its most vulnerable populations, and unrest seethes in the streets.

Normally I would be really excited and interested in a tower designed by Herog & deMeuron in my own city... but something about that image unsettled. It looks to me like a crystalization of that horrible societal sickness sprouting up in our city and I'm not sure I like it.

Plus, who would want to wait for the elevator?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd be very surprised if the building isn't cut in half. Seems every tower that's proposed is set to become the "tallest tower", only to be cut down to size.
 
Two main thoughts that come to mind:

1) The existing 1200 Bay is a perfectly fine building in its own rights, albeit from what I can imagine as having possibly dated interiors. Although it's understandable that a Herzog & de Meuron design would certainly have architectural benefits that outweigh the predecessor. Shame that there's no suitable compromise but I digress.

2) The sales and economics behind such a development. At the super-lux category, we're not looking at the standard local real estate speculator in our city. So I'm curious to see the market response to this in a couple years time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top